Poll: Sen Whitehouse begins process to put SCOTUS under ethics rules. Is it needed?

[HomerJS]

Exactly the consequences you mentioned. No mater what's done to bring them under control it will be ruled unconstitutional. At this point I don't see constraints as being necessary, but as the political divide widens it seems likely it will become so.

If you don't think constraints are necessary on SCOTUS why didn't you vote, "No"??

 

[JTsyo]

Exactly the consequences you mentioned. No mater what's done to bring them under control it will be ruled unconstitutional. At this point I don't see constraints as being necessary, but as the political divide widens it seems likely it will become so.

That's the beauty of it. The ethics rules will prevent them from making a ruling that effects only them. /s

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, now that we're here what are we going to do? Wait for the majority to die off? Can't be the best idea.

The best course would be to vote for a Congress that will do its job.
Okay, yeah, that one is a long shot.
Looks like waiting for them to die is probably the only real course forward. Of course, that only works if Congress decides to do their job next time. Which also seems unlikely.
My personal evaluation of the situation is that we are all probably fucked. Congress has discovered that it is better to blame each other for the failure than fix the problems. Leading our government to become too dysfunctional to do the basic job of governing itself. From now on it will just get slowly worse until something major happens, then it could go either way.

 

[HomerJS]

SCOTUS counsel answered Whitehouse letter. Whitehouse responded, "they just reiterated Alito's denials but did not answer any of our questions"

Too be continued.
Supreme Court counsel pushes back on inquiry from Democratic lawmakers over report of 2014 leak (msn.com)

 

[Muse]

The best course would be to vote for a Congress that will do its job.
Okay, yeah, that one is a long shot.
Looks like waiting for them to die is probably the only real course forward. Of course, that only works if Congress decides to do their job next time. Which also seems unlikely.
My personal evaluation of the situation is that we are all probably fucked. Congress has discovered that it is better to blame each other for the failure than fix the problems. Leading our government to become too dysfunctional to do the basic job of governing itself. From now on it will just get slowly worse until something major happens, then it could go either way.

Might sound nuts, but I prefer to throw the crystal ball against the granite cliffs, shattering it. IOW, to toss the idea that things are written in stone and keep pressing for change. The young get it, at least the smart ones, young at heart (and, of course, it ain't what it says on your driver's license). The women get it, well a lot more than the men do, and the blacks get it. They've always been better than the whites at knowing who their real friends are. The Latinos? I just don't know. There's a nasty macho GMFY streak among many, but I think the great majority are smarter than that. The gays mostly know the Democrats are far more on their side.

Look, the November midterms showed that what people thought wasn't what was necessarily going to happen. Press that forward. Climate change consciousness and ecology in general is increasingly getting traction. Where gun control is going? I think it's not wise to predict it's going nowhere, looking at the polls and the increased frequency of cringe inducing massacres.

The SCOTUS' recent activity is not popular by and large. Some of the court may decide they are sick on being unpopular and on the wrong side of history, what have they got to lose? Some people are hopeless. I don't expect a change of heart from Thomas or Alioto, but the other 4, who knows? Plus, justices can retire or die. Packing the court is not impossible. And we don't know what we don't know. That's not as stupid as it may sound to you.

 

[hal2kilo]

Guess who else has a conflict of interest.

John Roberts’ wife’s client list raises concern about “conflicts of interest and influence peddling" | Salon.com

 

[Verndewdimus]

Does SCOTUS need to be placed under ethics rules. Currently they are the only government branch that doesn't have any. Holding to any ethics standards are left up to individual justices.

Does this court need ethics enshrined into law/firm rule?

Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson Press SCOTUS About Apparent Ethical Lapses After New Outside Influence Scandal Emerges (senate.gov)

depends on how they define these ethics, typically such moves just serve one agenda or another. im more interested in the brunson v adams case being accepted.

 

[Verndewdimus]

lol i predict a houseful of minds blown in the near future. man if you only knew the truth

 

[fskimospy]

depends on how they define these ethics, typically such moves just serve one agenda or another. im more interested in the brunson v adams case being accepted.

It wouldn’t matter, SCOTUS would just ignore them.

 

[trenchfoot]

It wouldn’t matter, SCOTUS would just ignore them.

Which leads to the question of what the Democrats are doing about adding more judges to the SCOTUS while they're able to.

 

[fskimospy]

Which leads to the question of what the Democrats are doing about adding more judges to the SCOTUS while they're able to.

Sadly it’s too late as the house would never pass it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Sadly it’s too late as the house would never pass it.

It seems as if Manchin and Sinema had a lot to do stalling the effort until the Repubs could take the House back.

 

[hal2kilo]

There's even snowflakes in the SCOTUS.

Law professors torch Alito for demanding “safe space” and "complete insulation from critique"

Judge charged with interpreting 1st Amendment rights "can’t bear others exercising their free speech rights."

www.salon.com

 

[trenchfoot]

This thing about implementing ethics rules are an impediment toward "conducting business as usual" so whatever rules are put in place will be attacked from every conceivable angle to get around them, including building in vague and arguable language in the rules that blows gaping holes in the very intent of said rules. With every conservative judge being bought and paid for by their corporate sponsors, it'll be the Republicans that will try their best to gut these ethics rules from the moment the first drafts are being written up.

 

[zinfamous]

There's even snowflakes in the SCOTUS.

Law professors torch Alito for demanding “safe space” and "complete insulation from critique"

Judge charged with interpreting 1st Amendment rights "can’t bear others exercising their free speech rights."

www.salon.com

He's the Supreme Cvnt for a reason.

 

[hal2kilo]

So not even a moral compass in your back pocket.

"I know this is a controversial view": Alito says Supreme Court can't be spoon-fed an ethics code - Salon.com

"No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,” Alito said

www.salon.com

Or in other words nah nah I'm untouchable, FU.

 

[Verndewdimus]

enjoy the movie. the end wont be for everyone. It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it, should make for great comedy on this forum

 

[brycejones]

enjoy the movie. the end wont be for everyone. It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it, should make for great comedy on this forum

What do you think the status of Brunson v Adams is?

Supreme Court did not hear a case seeking to oust Biden and other elected officials

CLAIM: The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case last week that was expected to annul the 2020 election. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Supreme Court did not hear such a case.

apnews.com

 

[HomerJS]

Defund. SCOTUS

Nothing in the Constitution that demands they be funded

 

[Muse]

Poll right now: 69 to 1

 

[Muse]

Defund. SCOTUS

Nothing in the Constitution that demands they be funded

Yeah, they are now supremely unnecessary. Let their work be done by lower courts where ethics matter.

 

[brycejones]

Defund. SCOTUS

Nothing in the Constitution that demands they be funded

Let Alito put that in his pipe and smoke it.

 

[Jaskalas]

If we have co equal branches of govt why shouldn’t SCOTUS be subject to oversight? Do we just let corruption in the court just slide??

The premise of this topic is false.

Congress already has the power of "oversight" for SCOTUS, and to remove them from office.
The reason you complain is you know you will never have enough votes to secure the outcome you want. To perform this oversight as provided for in the Constitution.

This is not a question of the court. Rather, it is about our two parties and them fighting one another. Republicans will never question the corruption of their people. Our Democracy itself does not function under such partisan conditions. Resulting in many more and much bigger problems than the SCOTUS. One example, being unable to impeach Presidents for actual crimes like extortion, demanding a foreign nation interfere in our elections, and insurrection.

When the President is above the law, the SCOTUS certainly is as well. The outcome is these things is merely a partisan function, resulting in a breakdown of the rule of law, and the eventual use of force instead.

 

[allisolm]

Back in Feb you said:

im more interested in the brunson v adams case being accepted.

lol i predict a houseful of minds blown in the near future. man if you only knew the truth

Now you say:

It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it,

So far the only things I know have happened since Feb1 in regard to these cases is that the SC has declined twice more to hear either of them. Those decisions were certainly not mind-blowing.

So, please, tell me what is this truth that was supposed to have happened. What is it that you know and I don't about these cases that will cause me to implode?

 

[pmv]

Defund. SCOTUS

Nothing in the Constitution that demands they be funded

Haven't several of them already got themselves private sources of funding? Would they not just expand further on that? The whole enterprise would presumably swiftly be privatized. Supreme Court PLC.